CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
A theory about the origin of life and the Universe should not be taught to young children?
Should young children,whose intellects have yet to experience enough of life to form a reasonable judgement about abstract theories, be subjected to the theories of mans propaganda of ignorance according to creationism or evolutionism?
The basis of education is to equip young minds with the knowledge and ability to be able to have a good chance of succeeding in life. Certain aspects of education, such as English, Maths and (usually) Science are hardly ever questioned with regards to their importance in providing a well rounded education. An equally important part of education also is not simply teaching kids what to think, but teaching them how to think objectively.
There are certain things that you would absolutely expect to be taught to young children. In Maths, addition, subtraction, multiplication and division are amongst what should be taught. In English, spelling and grammar should be taught. In Chemistry, the periodic table and how chemicals react should be taught. It goes without saying then that in biology, evolution should absolutely be taught.
A lack of education in regards to evolution (and science in general) is a self perpetuating problem, as is evident by a lot of what is said on this site. Regardless of what some people may say, evolution is a fact, and natural selection is one of the most observed, validated and empirically backed-up theories since the conception of the scientific method. Please do not be confused with what is meant by a scientific theory, as the definition is entirely different to what a layman would call a theory. A scientific theory is a body of evidence to explain an observation. Evolution is the observation (fact), and natural selection is the process by which evolution occurs (theory).
Any opposition to evolution and natural selection is born entirely out of ignorance; whether it be due to lack of education, or because of a religious bias. Take, for example, some of the arguments made on the opposing side by lawnman.
"Life, unlike the theory of evolution, will never demonstrate an ape giving birth to any thing other than an ape. "
It's obvious that the opposition in this case is based upon a lack of understanding about evolution, not a legitimate critique of the theory. An ape doesn't, and never has, given birth to anything other than an ape. I won't bother refuting this statement, as I doubt lawnman is here to actually learn about evolution. Suffice to say, it is an argument born of ignorance.
Children should be taught the facts of life, and evolution is an absolute fact. Maybe if more children were taught about evolution, we wouldn't be having irrelevant arguments such as this. Arguments such as "therefore, monkeys are not born of monkeys, for humans are born of monkeys" are a sad reflection of the lack of education in scientific fields and religion's ability to stifle scientific progress. Keep your religious bias out of our schools, please.
#1. Just because Mathematics, English, Chemistry, and biology are taught to young children, as self-evident laws,there is no valid reason to be inferred thereof to teach young children a theory that is believed to be a fact.
The argument is both invalid and a straw-man. For the conclusion is not inferred from the premises and the premises are not related to the conclusion.
#2. Aside from the point of the debate, your argument does not even attempt to state any form of evidence that supports the theory. It does however only argue the existence of such a theory which coincidently is not a question of the debate.
#3. You affirm that, '.....evolution is a fact, and natural selection is one of the most observed, validated and empirically backed-up theories since the conception of the scientific method.'. Why do you not speak of any evidence that could be logically validated or empirically tested and observed. I find it curious that such wording lacks any self-evident support.
#4. If, as C. Darwin stated in his work,"The Origin of Species", the evidence of the theory of natural selection is to be confirmed or denied the fossil record shall be the final authority. The fossil record of today contradicts the theory of evolution, for it contains no intermediate fossils of any species of any genus. And thus, had C. Darwin been alive today and could see the nearly complete fossil record he would deny the validity of the theory of which he is the father.
#5. The theory of evolution like all religions only needs to be believed. For if it was a law then it would predict with mathematical precision the next species to be derived of any species.
#6. Mankind can be immediately benefited by the laws of life. And theories only seem to benefit they who are paid to fabricate fallacious, irrational theories.
"Just because Mathematics, English, Chemistry, and biology are taught to young children, as self-evident laws, there is no valid reason to be inferred thereof to teach young children a theory that is believed to be a fact."
You've affirmed the intent of my statement there, which was that any subject that has met a reasonable burden of proof should not be questioned in regards to it being taught to children. So, in order for evolution to be considered an acceptable field of study for children, I agree that a reasonable amount of proof is required to back up the theory. Before I begin with the proof though, I must address an issue that has become all too apparently obvious, and which will no doubt become a bone of contention further in this debate.
You've repeatedly demonstrated one of the key misunderstandings towards scientific theories. As I've said repeatedly on this site, science has special meanings for the words fact and theory which differ from the usual definitions; it is evident from your use in this sentence that you confuse the layman definitions of fact and theory with the scientific definitions. A scientific fact is a repeatable observation. In this respect evolution, changes in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next, is a scientific fact. It has been observed, is testable, repeatable and falsifiable. The domestication of dogs, cats, bananas, etc, are all examples that evolution as defined in this sense does indeed happen, though in these examples via artificial selection. A scientific theory is a body of evidence to explain the observations. In scientific terms, a theory explains a fact. In the context of this argument, the leading theory of how evolution occurs in nature is through natural selection.
"You affirm that, '.....evolution is a fact, and natural selection is one of the most observed, validated and empirically backed-up theories since the conception of the scientific method.'. Why do you not speak of any evidence that could be logically validated or empirically tested and observed. I find it curious that such wording lacks any self-evident support."
I find this highly amusing when in point 4 of your arguments you incorrectly state that "the fossil record of today contradicts the theory of evolution, for it contains no intermediate fossils of any species of any genus", without providing a shred of evidence to back it up. Not only will I show that this is very, very wrong, but also I will demonstate that the fossil record itself should be considered a "runner-up" to the amount of evidence provided by genetics.
I'm about to present a very small selection of evidence that natural selection does indeed occur. There is obviously far more evidence then I can possibly present in the context of this debate. I'll begin by providing evidence for certain priniciples that are required for natural selection to occur, such as beneficial mutations. I'll then go on to provide the evidence for natural selection as a whole. Please do not be of the false opinion that I am merely repeating certain rhetorics regarding evolution, as if I simply believe the theory of natural selection because "all of the scientists believe it." People on this site will attest to the fact that I actually have a very detailed working knowledge of natural selection. [1]
Firstly, let's show that beneficial mutations occur. Scientists have shown that beneficial mutations most definitely do occur to produce brand new alleles (variants of genes) that improve an organism's chances of survival in a particular environment. Natural selection has been demonstrated to increase the frequency of these alleles in a population. The easiest way to demonstrate this is from experiments based upon lines of organisms developed from clones (genetically identical by definition) of a single individual. In an experiment regarding the evolutionary adaptation of E. Coli in different temperatures, a single clone of E. coli was cultured at 37C for 2000 generations. A single clone was then extracted from this population and divided into replicates that were then cultured at either 32C , 37C, or 42C for a total of another 2000 generations. Adaptation of the new lines was periodically measured by competing these selection lines against the ancestor population. By the end of the experiment, the lines cultured at 32 C were shown to be 10% fitter that the ancestor population, and the line cultured at 42C was shown to be 20% fitter than the ancestor population. The replicate line that was cultured at 37C showed little improvement over the ancestral line. [2] Similar results were shown in an experiement regarding the growth of Chlamydomonas in dark locations. Several clonal lines of Chlamydomonas were cultured in the dark for several hundred generations. Some of the lines grew well in the dark, but other lines were almost unable to grow at all. The poor growth lines improved throughout the course of the experiment until by 600 generations they were well adapted to growth in the dark. This experiment showed that new, beneficial mutations are capable of quickly (in hundreds of generations) adapting an organism that almost required light for survival to growth in the complete absence of light. [3] Benificial mutations haven't just been demonstrated in bacteria though. They also occur in humans, and there are multiple experiments that have observed it. A study into mutations of Lipoprotein lipase found that the LPL Ser447-Stop mutation had a protective effect against the development of atherosclerosis and coronary heart disease. [4] So, I've presented a small amount of evidence that beneficial mutations can occur. Although this may sound trivial, the understanding the beneficial mutations can and do occur is sometimes questioned, and therefore I thought it best to get this out of the way immediately. So, let's get first to fossil evidence for evolution and natural selection. Remember, this is only a small part of the evidence (genetics is by far the best evidence we have).
Fossils.
Before getting to the evidence, I just want to make some things clear in regards to criticisms that "the fossil record of today contradicts the theory of evolution, for it contains no intermediate fossils of any species of any genus." It's important to remember that the conditions required for fossilisation to occur are rare. Regardless of that point, we literally have hundreds of thousands of fossils, all of which are shown to be in a specific order. There are thousands and thousands of examples of intermediate fossils. The problem comes when people then start requesting intermediate fossils between the intermediate fossils. Another debator on this site put this idea forward, and I'd like (I hope they don't mind) to use their argument to explain this problem.
"As far as other species, the discovery process is paradoxical. Let's say you have species A which is the ancestor of species B. You are looking for the "missing link" in between the two (species C). One day species C is discovered. Now, where you only had one hole (between A and B), you have two (between A and C, and between C and B). Creationists often take advantage of this fact by claim there are tons of holes in the fossil record, when in fact scientists have made lots of discoveries." - andsoccer16
A fantastically in depth argument regarding why there are "gaps" can be found [here].
The fossil record provides snapshots of the past that, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past four billion years. The picture may be smudged in places and may have bits missing, but fossil evidence clearly shows that life has extremely old origins and has changed dramatically over time. We'll begin with fish.
In the Late Silurian and Early Devonian periods, we have the first indicators of the evolution of sharks from common fish. The first recognizable shark teeth began, derived from scales. Cladoselache was a branching of boneless fish into sharks, though not direct ancestors to common sharks, and presented a remarkable picture of early shark anatomy. [5] We go through a number of other sharks; Tristychius and Ctenacanthus specifically, until we reach Paleospinax, which demonstrated some of the first examples of a detached upper jaw. [6] At the same time, a seperate line of evolution (as evident in the horrible "gappy" fossil record with absolutely no intermediate fossils) occured from boneless fish towards those with bones. Palaeoniscoids are some of the first examples of primitive ray fish with very small bones. [7] Canobius and Aeduella were obvious ancestors of Paleoniscoids, only with more advanced jaws. [8][9] The gap between Oreochima and Leptolepis demonstrated the evolution from partially ossified to fully ossified vertebrae.
We'll leave fish and begin looking at the evolution from primitive bony fish to amphibians. Many incorrectly attribute the fish-amphibian transition to a transition from water to land. It was actually a transition from fins to feet that took place in the water. The very first amphibians seem to have developed legs and feet to scud around on the bottom in the water, as some modern fish do, not to walk on land. (Osteolepis -> Eusthenopteron -> Panderichthys -> Obruchevichthys). [10] This aquatic-feet stage meant the fins didn't have to change very quickly, the weight-bearing limb musculature didn't have to be very well developed, and the axial musculature didn't have to change at all. Recently found fragmented fossils from the middle Upper Devonian, and new discoveries of late Upper Devonian feet, support this idea of an "aquatic feet" stage. [11] Eventually, of course, amphibians did move onto the land. This involved attaching the pelvis more firmly to the spine, and separating the shoulder from the skull. Lungs were not a problem, since lungs are an ancient fish trait and were present already. [12] In summary, the very first amphibians were probably almost totally aquatic, had both lungs and internal gills throughout life, and scudded around underwater with flipper-like, many-toed feet that didn't carry much weight. Different lineages of amphibians began to bend either the hind feet or front feet forward so that the feet carried weight. One line (Hynerpeton) bore weight on all four feet, developed strong limb girdles and muscles, and quickly became more terrestrial.
There was then a huge transition occured amongst amphibians. Hands and ribs began to evolve with Dendrerpeton acadianum [13], and the Occipital condyle began to split into two with Eryops megacephalu. [14] This is only a tiny selection of the fossils, and you can already see that a great amount of intermediate fossils are contained within the fossil record, showing almost the entire evolution of bones, jaws, hands, feet, lungs, etc. I won't bore you with more examples of transitional fossils.
I will leave you with a source demonstrating a small selection of transitional fossils from amphibians into reptiles and reptiles into mammals, [here].
I'll also supply a great source showing the evolution of humans in fossil records, [here]
Genetics.
All of evolution is based on genetic change. While scientists still have a lot to learn about the workings of genetic code, science has built up a large volume of knowledge about how the genetic material of living organisms works. While there are a lot of details still to be learned we have a pretty good understanding of what DNA does in general and, equally important to evolution, how DNA changes. In regards to point 4 of your argument, I believe Darwin would have even been so brave as to call the fossil record irrelevant were he presented with the genetic evidence we have today. Remember, Darwin did not have this knowledge at the time.
The foundation of evolution is not just working DNA but changing DNA. The primary mechanism of significant change in DNA is mutation. That DNA is subject to mutation is a fact. This has been directly observed, and I've provided a few of these observations previously in this argument. In addition, many of the mechanisms of mutation are understood; including mutations that can lead to drastic changes in an organism. So, there are understood mechanisms by which change can be affected.
All living organisms have in common that they posses genetic material that is subject to these mechanisms of change. What's more, we understand that the characteristics an organism possesses are determined by its genetic code. Its genes are largely what makes an organism what it is. These facts, that 1) DNA determines the nature of an organism and that 2) there are mechanisms through which DNA can be modified, are the basis of evolution. It is through these facts that evolution happens.
So, we have a mechanism for encoding the characteristics of a life form (traits), a mechanism for this code to be changed (the change in traits), no known mechanism to definitively limit the amount of changes that can take place (so nothing to stop speciation), and lots of time for changes to take place. The very basis of evolution, genetics, supports the idea that common descent is true.
It's getting extremely late, so I'll post this as "part 1" of my evidence, and I'll go into the genetic evidence soon.
I attempted to post a rebuttal to your arguments. However, after entering all the information of the rebuttal it seems as though the CreateDebate website failed to post my reply. It's late and I will reply on the morrow. Yet, before I end this I want to state that I prefer that we debate one proposition at a time along with the terms of the proposition. I think this would be expedient for the debate. If not, the rebuttals shall become to long to be useful.
"Yet, before I end this I want to state that I prefer that we debate one proposition at a time along with the terms of the proposition. I think this would be expedient for the debate. If not, the rebuttals shall become to long to be useful."
First of all, I want you to be aware of my position concerning the debate of the theory of evolution. There are many evidences of many things in life. And that which one person infers as evidence of one thing is not necessarily and universally evidence of the same unto another person. Moreover, that which you have written of as evidence of evolution I find to be unconvincing. And likewise that, which I have written of I perceive is also unconvincing unto you. I am not interested in dissuading your position in regards to your conclusions. I am more interested in challenging what I think is axiomatic concerning the progenitors of the members of a species.
Axiom: a conclusion that needs no proof because its truth is obvious. (As used in Logic)
My axiom, simplified, is that a progenitor propagates progeny of its own species. Or one could also say that each species propagates its own species.
The definitions of the terms of my propositional axiom do not connote meanings that are specially defined. Example: Species A begets offspring of Species A. Man is born of man. Oranges are the fruit of Orange trees, etc.
What is your axiom?
Our debate has now effectively been reduced to two conclusions; one is yours and the other mine. We can actually spare one another thousands of words of explanations by simply determining the root cause of our disagreement, so called. Take for example the following argument.
My argument: A is B, and B is D, therefore A is D.
Your argument: A is not B, B is not D, and therfore A is not D.
We can agree or disagree based upon the axiom. And the debate logically ends or begins thereby.
I would argue that the simplification of your axiom is at the root cause of the misunderstanding.
The label "species" is a completely arbritrary method of categorisation. Whilst a progenitor will of course immediately produce the same species, its offspring will not be genetically identical, and its the accumulation of these genetic differences that eventually cause a new species. I will try to be as simple and to the point with my initial argument as possible, as I feel your intepretation of my argument is entirely incorrect.
Let us label a progenitor at any stage of the evolutionary line as N. The offspring of a progenitor will be N+1. We can say both N is N+1 and N is not N+1 depending on our criteria of equality, in this debate the criteria being either the same species or genetically identical respectively. Whilst a parent and their offspring are the same species (N is N+1) they are NOT genetically identical (N is not N+1). I assume that you don't disagree with this point, but if you do than please say so.
My argument (I will not call it an axiom), also simplified, is that an accumulation of genetic differences caused by random mutations means that whilst N is N+1 (using your equality criteria), it does not self evidently lead to the fact that N is N+x (x being any number of generations along the evolutionary tree), and that the chances of N not being N+x increases in probability the higher the value of x is.
Because the definition of a species is arbritrarily defined (simplistically) as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, and as genetics provides the mechanisms for performing this functionality, it is not illogical to state that my criteria for equality has a direct baring on how your criteria for equality is measured. As in all cases my criteria for equality means that N is not N+1, and as the accumulation of my criteria has a direct effect on how your criteria is measured, it lends that this can lead to N is not N+x.
I did not call my argument an axiom as, according to your definition, it is something that requires no proof. I have clearly shown an alternative possibilty to your argument (as you have done to mine), therefore your axiom is not self evident and you are required to show evidence to back it up. I too must also bring evidence to the table to back up my argument. I'm afraid this will not be as simple for you as you first thought, as the debate does not logically end or begin based upon self evident axioms, but by differing arguments backed up by evidence. We've both stated our positions (neither or which are self evident, but both of which are possiblities), now let's debate both the arguments raised and the evidence to support those arguments.
So, if you wish to continue debating this, here is a bullet pointed list of some of the points that I will be making to back up my argument. You may rebute them as you see fit.
1. A parent and their child are never genetically identical.
2. Genetic mutations occur.
3. Some of these genetic mutations are beneficial to the organism.
4. As the definition of species is arbritrary, there is no natural force that limits genetic mutations to only those that would not affect the reproductive processes of an organism.
5. An accumulation of mutations that affect reproductive processes would eventually lead to an N+x that could not produce fertile offspring with N.
I feel I've adequately made my point, and shown your intitial axiom to not be as self evident as it would initial appear. I hope you too see that we will need to provide evidence to back up our positions (as neither is self evident). I look forward to a good debate.
For the purposes of enhancing the quality of the debate and our communication, and also precluding any verbose debate that is burdensome, I want to restrict the subject matter of the debate. All evidences for argument are to be inferred of the species Homo sapiens born within the last two-thousand years. And by doing so the discourse should be expedited to a conclusion without becoming burdened by the differences resulting from ambiguity of species or asexual reproduction of a single- celled organism such as bacteria or multicellular organisms such as some plants and fungi that too are asexual. I do not think I have presented a difficulty for your case and presume you agree. If you disagree, we’ll settle the issue quickly enough.
You stated: “1. A parent and their child are never genetically identical.”
Having realized that I have highly constrained the body of evidence from which you may or may not infer from to validate your argument/s, I will not presume to affirm or deny point number one. However, my point as is related to your point is:
No Homo sapien is genetically identical to another Homo sapien.
Evidence: No man is identical to either his mother or father or siblings or identical twin. And in the case of identical twins it’s a matter of objective observation and not subjective. Meaning, if person A is told that persons C and D are identical twins, person A looks subjectively for visible similarity not objectively for discernable dissimilarity; and moreover, no woman, who has married an identical twin, accidentally sleeps with the twin brother; for the wife of a twin can discern the difference between the twins equally as well as the parents and siblings of the twins. There are similarities betwixt progenitors and progeny and siblings, but there are always discernable identities among the members of any family. These visible or discernable traits of identity are what I call evidence of genetic identity. The cause of which is the sexual reproductive combining of two separate sets of genetics.
The genetics of any one Homo sapien is a necessary, inescapable, and immediate consequence of two sexually reproductive progenitors, each having different genetics. The combination of the same set of genetics as a consequence of sexual reproduction will never produce an identical set of genetics. Or said another way, the sexual reproductive consequences of the same man and woman will never beget an identical set of genetics. It may be theoretically possible, but no man or woman has stepped up to the plate. (LOL) Moreover, the genetic identity of an individual is a result of mixing thousands of genetic identities by the effective sexual reproduction of the progenitors.
Let’s hash out point #1 before proceeding, if you will.
And unless you disagree I've spoken of nothing that is not axiomatic thus far.
What happens to bacteria after it has created a resistance to penicillen? It destroys what it consumes and thus commits suicide. I wouldn't exactly call the E. Coli test a beneficial mutation.
I would understand if there was some debate in the scientific community about the origin on life, and the universe, however this is not the case. Over 99% of scientists agree that evolution is correct. Only those uneducated in biology doubt that evolution occurred, and only those who are ignorant about astronomy doubt the big bang as the cause for the creation of our universe.
What the creator of this debate is doing is making an appeal to common sense as opposed to rationale. Science is based on evidence, and the evidence doesn't always point to what we would expect. For example, if a child is holding a helium balloon in a moving car, and the car breaks suddenly, what does common sense dictate will happen to the balloon? Wouldn't you expect it to lurch forward with everyone else in the car? This is not the case however, and instead it goes the opposite direction.
The current public doubt of evolution, stems not from flaws with the theory, but instead public ignorance. The only way to fight this is to teach evolution better.
Without question a large portion of scientists agree that evolution is a fact. That however is not an evidence of anything other than the fact that such a theory exists. The proponents of a theory are not the evidence/s of the validity of a theory. Would you please elaborate how common-sense and rationale are opposed? For common-sense is the immediate consequence of sound reasoning. And as such the two are not opposed. They demonstrate congruity.
Conclusion: The argument lacks evidential support for the validation of the theory. And hence, why subject young minds to theories which even the theorists fail to comprehend the illogical consequences thereof?
Oh, so you want proof of evolution. Well, I already posted that in another debate called, "why has evolution not been proven yet?" So if that's your only complaint, then I shall copy and paste:
What do you mean by proven?
It has been proven, better than almost any theory in any subject. It is backed up by evidence in embryology, archeology, geology, and numerous different fields of biology, including genetics.
I am going to assume that you are referring to the fact that evolution is a scientific theory. In science, theories aren't proven. Theories are akin to explanations, not guesses. For example, the theory of gravitation is the explanation of how gravity works. We can see gravity, measure gravity, and we explain this through the theory. Evolution is the same way: we see evolution occurring today, we have tons of evidence for evolution that happened in the past through fossils, and we explain this through the theory.
If there was a way to prove a theory, evolution would have met that burden of proof, however, in science there is no way to "prove" a theory.
Validity is not proof. I am requesting evidence that validates the theory. The posted video is laughably missing the point its' author is attempting to prove. Several laws of reason are broken in his, 'coffin'. The creators' supposed evidence beggs the question which he is trying to prove. He assumes his evidences are evidences of evolution. He assumes by his own words that he has proven the theory of evolution.
The problem is that he fails to recognize what is necessary to support the validation of the theory. He can claim whatever he wants is,'proof' yet in doing so he only proves his abundant ignorance of that which he must necessarily provide as evidence of proof of what he aims to prove.
Meaning a lawyer has not proven a man is a murderer if he proves that the man is ugly. He has only proven the man is ugly. The laws of reason tear down all unreasonable mens' arguments.
"Irrefutable Proof of Evolution" is the kind of crappola that causes logicians to cringe. Truly, the scientists have not failed you but the linguist and logician have.
This is what you call science? I call it faith.
Last, The theory of evolution as presented in your arguments explains nothing, but at its' best is a guess. Yea rather it is 'akin' to faith and hope. Please choose better support for your arguments. No, choose something that supports the theory not tear down the theory.
So you say there is another, better explanation of his evidence other than evolution? Are you saying that his evidence is not proof of evolution? Please then provide a reasonable alternative, or show the actual flaws in his logic. You talk about his video as if it somehow disproves evolution, yet you fail to show specifically how. The creator of the video doesn't assume anything. Looking objectively at the evidence there is only one reasonable conclusion that can be drawn.
This is what you call science? I call it faith.
You can call it whatever you want, but know that science requires no faith. If a scientist told me that the sun was made of cheetos, then I would demand evidence, as would anyone else. Science is based on evidence. If Einstein himself, said that there was a leprechaun on my shoulder, I would not believe him until he showed me evidence.
Your failure to point out any actual flaws in the argument, show that you don't have anything to actually argue against. You are in over your head here, so instead of trying to point to logical fallacies where none exist, you may want to stick to the facts: that based on our current understanding of the world, evolution is true beyond any reasonable doubt.
Yes a theory should be taught, but not just any theory. The theory of evolution should be taught in schools, as the theory of Adam and Eve is rather misleading. (I remember I was totally confused as a little kid about which was true and which was false) :P
Elementary school kids are incapable of understanding shit like this though... well, maybe at 11 they can, but before that they only think in a concrete fashion.
so, theories should be presented, but actually teaching them should come during Middle School.
Children nowadays were way smarter than before and I think that they should be thought about this thousand year old question that revolves around for over the vast period of time.
Intelligent Design Theory and Evolutionism could be a fun topic for them and might develop their early reasoning skills. They will eventually learn it sooner and its better that they are taught in school instead of learning all of this in a new concept from their friends.
both creationism and evolution are a big part of human history and therefore should both be taught as such. children can make up their own minds, like they tend to do whether parents like it or not. it's not like if we omit teaching someone about the big bang or christianity they'll never hear about it again. certain words aren't allowed to be broadcast, yet children still know them.
Well, hells, let's just teach everybody's theory of creation, then.
....................
First we can teach them the theory of creation according to the Norse:
"The first world to exist was Muspell, a place of light and heat whose flames are so hot that those who are not native to that land cannot endure it. Surt sits at Muspell's border, guarding the land with a flaming sword. At the end of the world he will vanquish all the gods and burn the whole world with fire. Beyond Muspell lay the great and yawning void named Ginnungagap, and beyond Ginnungagap lay the dark, cold realm of Niflheim. Ice, frost, wind, rain and heavy cold emanated from Niflheim, meeting in Ginnungagap the soft air, heat, light, and soft air from Muspell. Where heat and cold met appeared thawing drops, and this running fluid grew into a giant frost ogre named Ymir. Ymir slept, falling into a sweat. Under his left arm there grew a man and a woman. And one of his legs begot a son with the other. This was the beginning of the frost ogres. Thawing frost then became a cow called Audhumla. Four rivers of milk ran from her teats, and she fed Ymir. The cow licked salty ice blocks. After one day of licking, she freed a man's hair from the ice. After two days, his head appeared. On the third day the whole man was there. His name was Buri, and he was tall, strong, and handsome. Buri begot a son named Bor, and Bor married Bestla, the daughter of a giant. Bor and Bestla had three sons: Odin was the first, Vili the second, and Vé the third.
It is believed that Odin, in association with his brothers, is the ruler of heaven and earth. He is the greatest and most famous of all men. Odin, Vili, and Vé killed the giant Ymir. When Ymir fell, there issued from his wounds such a flood of blood, that all the frost ogres were drowned, except for the giant Bergelmir who escaped with his wife by climbing onto a lur [a hollowed-out tree trunk that could serve either as a boat or a coffin]. From them spring the families of frost ogres. The sons of Bor then carried Ymir to the middle of Ginnungagap and made the world from him. From his blood they made the sea and the lakes; from his flesh the earth; from his hair the trees; and from his bones the mountains. They made rocks and pebbles from his teeth and jaws and those bones that were broken. Maggots appeared in Ymir's flesh and came to life. By the decree of the gods they acquired human understanding and the appearance of men, although they lived in the earth and in rocks. From Ymir's skull the sons of Bor made the sky and set it over the earth with its four sides. Under each corner they put a dwarf, whose names are East, West, North, and South. The sons of Bor flung Ymir's brains into the air, and they became the clouds. Then they took the sparks and burning embers that were flying about after they had been blown out of Muspell, and placed them in the midst of Ginnungagap to give light to heaven above and earth beneath. To the stars they gave appointed places and paths. The earth was surrounded by a deep sea. The sons of Bor gave lands near the sea to the families of giants for their settlements. To protect themselves from the hostile giants, the sons of Bor built for themselves an inland stonghold, using Ymir's eyebrows. This stonghold they named Midgard. While walking along the sea shore the sons of Bor found two trees, and from them they created a man and a woman. Odin gave the man and the woman spirit and life. Vili gave them understanding and the power of movement. Vé gave them clothing and names. The man was named Ask [Ash] and the woman Embla [Elm?]. From Ask and Embla have sprung the races of men who lived in Midgard." -- The Prose Edda
....................
Then we can teach them the theory of creation according to the Egyptians:
At first there was only Nun, the primal ocean of chaos that contained the beginnings of everything to come. From these waters came Ra who, by himself, gave birth to Shu and Tefnut. Shu, the god of air, and Tefnut, the goddess of moisture gave birth to Geb and Nut, the earth god and the sky goddess. And so the physical universe was created. Men were created from Ra's tears. They proved to be ungrateful so Ra, and a council of gods, decided they should be destroyed. Hathor was dispatched to do the job. She was very efficient and slaughtered all but a remnant, when Ra relented and called her off. Thus was the present world created. Against Ra's orders, Geb and Nut married. Ra was incensed and ordered Shu to separate them, which he did. But Nut was already pregnant, although unable to give birth as Ra had decreed she could not give birth in any month of any year. Thoth, the god of learning, decided to help her and gambling with the moon for extra light, was able to add five extra days to the 360-day calendar. On those five days Nut gave birth to Osiris, Horus the Elder, Set, Isis, and Nephthys successively. Osiris became the symbol of good, while Set became the symbol of evil. And thus the two poles of morality were fixed once and for all.
Now before the land of Egypt rose out of the waters at the beginning of the world, Ra the Shining One came into being. He was all-powerful, and the secret of his power lay in his Name which was hidden from all the world. Having this power, he had only to name a thing, and that thing too came into being. "I am Khepera at the dawn, and Ra at noon, and Tum in the evening," he said--and as he said it, behold, he was the sun rising in the east, passing across the sky and setting in the west. And this was the 1st day of the world. When he named Shu, the wind blew. The rain fell when he named Tefnut the spitter. After this he spoke the name of Geb, and the earth rose above the waters of the sea. He cried, "Nut!"--and that goddess was the arch of the sky stretching over the earth with her feet on one horizon and her hands on the other. Then he named Hapi, and the sacred River Nile flowed through Egypt to make it fruitful. Then Ra went on to name all the things on earth, which grew into being at his words. Last of all he spoke the words for "Man" and "Woman," and soon there were people dwelling throughout the land of Egypt. After this Ra himself took on the shape of a man and became the first Pharaoh of Egypt.
Then we can teach them the theory of creation according to the Inca:
One morning Pachacamac the sun rose from Lake Titicaca. He was so bright that nothing else could be seen in the sky so he made the moon and the stars. Pachamanac created the first humans out of stone but they wouldn’t do because they sank too easily; they also knew nothing. The moon and the sun had children, and they tried to help the pitiful humans. The sun and the moon had a son and a daughter. They sent them to the earth to help the people. The son taught men how to build, plow, and plant. The daughter taught the women how to weave and prepare food. The son of the sun god became the first Inca.
Then we can teach them the theory of creation according to the Sumerians:
“In the beginning the gods had to farm their food themselves. The hard work of cleaning rivers and canals weighed heavily on them and put them in a rebellious mood, so that they blamed [the wise god] Enki and, in the periods of rest from work at noon and in the evening, wantonly destroyed what they had just accomplished. Enki’s mother, Namma, brought their distress to her son’s notice and suggested that he devise a substitute for the gods who could take over their toil and so relieve them. Enki pondered the problem and was reminded of how he himself was engendered by the fathering clay of the Apsu . . . Accordingly, he asked his mother to give birth to man from it, and she readily complied . . . finally she gave birth, attended by the goddess Ninmah . . . Enki decided to celebrate the birth of man. Beer flowed freely, and both Ninmah and Enki felt its effect. Ninmah began to boast that it was actually she who controlled what man was to be like: at her whim she would make a good or bad job of him. Her challenge was taken up by Enki, who ventured that he would be able to mitigate any harm she might wish to do. Ninmah then took a lump of the fathering clay of the Apsu and molded successively from it seven human beings, each with a different bodily defect. To each of them, however, Enki was able to assign a place in society . . . eventually Ninmah gave up and angrily threw the clay on the ground. Enki picked it up and suggested that he now fashion a creature for her to cope with, as he had coped with the ones she made. He then, with intent to destroy her city, fashioned a creature from the clay . . . the creature suffered from all kinds of bodily ills, cannot eat or drink, cannot sit or lie down, cannot talk. Ninmah does not know what to do with it and is unable to support it. Enki taunts her . . . and Enki’s male member is praised.” -- Thorkild Jacobsen, “The Harps that Once . . . : Sumerian Poetry in Translation”
....................
Then we can teach them the theory of creation according to the Aborigine:
There was a time when everything was still. All the spirits of the earth were asleep - or almost all. The great Father of All Spirits was the only one awake. Gently he awoke the Sun Mother. As she opened her eyes a warm ray of light spread out towards the sleeping earth. The Father of All Spirits said to the Sun Mother, "Mother, I have work for you. Go down to the Earth and awake the sleeping spirits. Give them forms." The Sun Mother glided down to Earth, which was bare at the time and began to walk in all directions and everywhere she walked plants grew. After returning to the field where she had begun her work the Mother rested, well pleased with herself. The Father of All Spirits came and saw her work, but instructed her to go into the caves and wake the spirits. This time she ventured into the dark caves on the mountainsides. The bright light that radiated from her awoke the spirits and after she left insects of all kinds flew out of the caves. The Sun Mother sat down and watched the glorious sight of her insects mingling with her flowers. However once again the Father urged her on. The Mother ventured into a very deep cave, spreading her light around her. Her heat melted the ice and the rivers and streams of the world were created. Then she created fish and small snakes, lizards and frogs. Next she awoke the spirits of the birds and animals and they burst into the sunshine in a glorious array of colors. Seeing this the Father of All Spirits was pleased with the Sun Mother's work. She called all her creatures to her and instructed them to enjoy the wealth of the earth and to live peacefully with one another. Then she rose into the sky and became the sun. The living creatures watched the Sun in awe as she crept across the sky, towards the west. However when she finally sunk beneath the horizon they were panic-stricken, thinking she had deserted them. All night they stood frozen in their places, thinking that the end of time had come. After what seemed to them like a lifetime the Sun Mother peeked her head above the horizon in the East. The earth's children learned to expect her coming and going and were no longer afraid. At first the children lived together peacefully, but eventually envy crept into their hearts. They began to argue. The Sun Mother was forced to come down from her home in the sky to mediate their bickering. She gave each creature the power to change their form to whatever they chose. However she was not pleased with the end result. The rats she had made had changed into bats; there were giant lizards and fish with blue tongues and feet. However the oddest of the new animals was an animal with a bill like a duck, teeth for chewing, a tail like a beaver's and the ability to lay eggs. It was called the platypus. The Sun Mother looked down upon the Earth and thought to herself that she must create new creatures lest the Father of All Spirits be angered by what she now saw. She gave birth to two children. The god was the Morning Star and the goddess was the moon. Two children were born to them and these she sent to Earth. They became our ancestors.
And then we can teach the theory of creation according to the Christians, and so forth.
Gee, when ya think about it, it's an awful lot of material to go through. I bet we could even do a whole course on it, separate from the science course. Maybe we should call this course "world mythology" instead. That way, my kids won't end up thinking that intelligent design is science, and your kids won't end up thinking that praising Enki's penis is science.
while sumerians were awesome, and i wouldn't have minded being taught about them in school (i had to look it up on my own), we can't teach every theory that ever existed. but the major ones that should be common knowledge for everyday life such as christianity and evolution should be taught just like wars, as part of history. whether they were "good" or "evil", and whether we agree with them or not. we teach about the holocaust because everyone has to be informed. besides, if we spruced up our school system and actually educated children, then maybe we WOULD have time to teach all theories o creation.
What makes Christianity more "major" than other creation myths? The Sumerians, Egyptians, Greeks, Norse, Celts, Inca, Aztec, and Maya -- just to name a few -- were all tremendously influential and wide-ranging cultures.
I for one think that the Christian notion of intelligent design would compare quite nicely to the Sumerian theory of inebriated design. The children could debate whether life on earth (and humanity in particular) is the work of a single intelligent creator, or the work of a group of drunken creators having a pissing contest with one another. Now how could that be anything but educational?
The ability to observe life is not impaired in children. The ability of children to form judgments of the experiences of life are hindered by theories that advance the corruption of well-funded ignorance, i.e., the impossibility of proving a negative.
No one can prove with demonstrable evidence or predictable law that any species of life is born of another species of life.
Life will, as it has always, teach the sons and daughters of this world that if they plant cucumber seeds they will harvest cucumbers. If they plant orange seeds they shall harvest oranges. If they marry and conceive children their children will be humans. Life, unlike the theory of evolution, will never demonstrate an ape giving birth to any thing other than an ape.
Conclusion: No theory should be taught, for life teaches the facts of the laws of life unto all children contrary to the funded theories of the educators. Theories of life exist because they are well-funded theories which promote that which shall never be demonstrated by life. And hence any theory that is taught is assured future funding that will always be taught for the sake of more money and not the sake of fact.
Do not the science classes teach that monkeys are born of monkeys and that humans are born of monkeys? Therefore, monkeys are not born of monkeys, for humans are born of monkeys. The laws of life and reason shall never change, but the theories of men are unstable and unlearned evidences of more and more funding for more and more unstable and unlearned theories.
Do you doubt that humans age? Do you ask: how can aging be true, if a baby never goes to sleep, and wakes up a man. A baby will always be a baby the next day.
Clearly evolution doesn't happen the way you describe, but instead over millions of years by small, imperceptible changes from generation to generation. These changes build up over time, the same way small changes over time make a baby look like a toddler, then a boy, then a teenager, then a man, and finally an old man.
I was never trying to argue the point that it should be taught, but instead showing the flaws in your logic. I used the metaphor of aging, in order to demonstrate both your skewed reasoning, and your ignorance on the subject of evolution.
Saying that a cucumber seeds will always produce a cucumber is not a valid argument against evolution. As I said before, evolution takes place over hundreds of thousands, or millions of years. The changes are gradual similar to the small changes that take place in an aging human. I was not confusing the two, but instead offering a comparison.
Finally, you seem to have a serious misunderstanding of the word "theory" as it applies to science. Theory, does not mean guess, but is closer to explanation. The theory of gravity for example, explains well observed and measured phenomenon. Should we not teach that theory in school? As I have shown in my other arguments, evolution has an enormous amount of proof supporting it, and practically no one disputes it...in fact it's the basis for all of biology! Therefore, there is no harm in teaching it to children.
Metaphors are not analogies and analogies are not metaphors. Perversions of logic and language cloud the mind and hinder sound reasoning.
If evolution takes place over hundreds or thousands, or millions of years and thus are the worlds species then explain how that differs from faith in a thing that is not demonstrated in the lifetime of a thousand generations of men. The theory is petitio principii,begging the question. The theory assumes the conclusion in the premise that the argument attempts to prove. And therefore is a fallacy of reason.
In what way is evolution begging the question? You are clearly projecting the faults of your own belief system onto that of evolution. Religion requires faith, and religion uses circular logic, not science. Science says, observe, hypothesize, predict based on your hypothesis, test your hypothesis, observe your results to see if they match. If they don't, then you must revise your hypothesis and test the new one. Your bullshit arguments about logical fallacies are specious.
No other theory can explain the facts.
Fact: The earth is over 4 billion years old
Fact: There has been life on earth for three billion years
Fact: The fossil record shows animals changing over time, and genetic testing later backed this claim up
Fact (and this is the most important one): evolution is still happening today! Scientists still observe speciation occurring today! Source. How can you deny evolution, when we can see it happening?
The only one here whose arguments are clouded, is you. You have already assumed that evolution is incorrect and therefore any evidence must be flawed. You are not open minded enough to look at the evidence objectively and see the truth.
Finally, allow me to give you an example of how our knowledge of evolution actually saves lives. Have you ever gotten a flu vaccine? If so, then you might know that flu vaccines must be changed every year. Why? Because, the flu virus evolves to become immune to older vaccines, and to survive better. If not for our knowledge of evolution, we would not be able to fight this and people would die. So I hope now you understand the importance of evolution and why we must teach it to our children.
And lo, I looked and beheld them that could no longer reason or recognize reason
and I said to myself, “How can a people who have lost their minds know that they
are mindless?” After much labor I learned that they contrary to their own words
de-evolved to a state that they only could obey what others said they must
believe.
Are you on a prescription drug. I recommend you take your next dose .
Anger in an argument is always evidence of a frustration to be smarter than you actually are.
“Your bullshit arguments about logical fallacies are specious.”
It has become blatantly obvious, according to your manifold statements, there is a lack of understanding on your behalf, or a lack of communication on my behalf, that negates the comprehension of sound reasoning whereby you can both understand and engage myself in debate of any subject, let alone the subject of the abstract, theory of evolution. In the above statement you affirmed that my,’ bullshit arguments about logical fallacies are specious’.
What is a logical fallacy? I wish I could for your sake call it an oxymoron. It is however much worse than an oxymoron.
No fallacy is logical. Nothing that is logical is fallacious.
The proposition, like so many other statements you advance in your arguments, inexorably rely upon the fallacy of petition principii. Why do you assume the conclusion in the premise of all of your arguments? I know the answer; there are no valid arguments that logically support your belief in a theory that lacks a self-evident axiom. Therefore, all of your arguments ask that the opposition, I, grant in the premise of your arguments the conclusion that you are attempting to validate.
There is no thing that can be reasonably called a logical fallacy. Your proposition affirms that fallacies are logical. You modify the term fallacies with the term logical. You also ignorantly affirm my arguments were on the subject of logical fallacies. Your proposition evidences ignorance of both language and logic. You do err in both accounts.
Not once in this debate have I argued any subject that could be called logical fallacies. That is categorically similar to debating the subject, round squares, or two parallel lines crossing. However, I have bared witness to a few of the opposition’s arguments which are fallacious in reasoning and will not call them logical.
My position, regardless of the field of knowledge that I take pleasure in, is limited to the governing rules of logic, the science of correct reasoning, from which I can or must think and argue, and that which I should never think or argue. For any man that chooses to ignore and or break the laws of correct reasoning will in the end be deprived of a better understanding of the sciences he derives pleasure from.
It appears you believe whatever you want to subjectively believe as being an element of your faith or dogma, but until the propositions born of your faith can syllogistically demonstrate the conclusion you wish too prove, and not violate any law of reason in the argument, you deprive yourself of a greater joy that neither I or any other man or logician can challenge.
Do not feel as though I have ignored your arguments. I do not disagree with some of the inferences drawn from the evidences. However, I would prefer to call adaptations evidences of adaptations and not evolution.
That which is thought to be evidence of a subject, and in this case a theory, may not be logically understood by a man of reason as being evidence of the same subject. For example:
One person may illogically reason that because both cows and humans have hair that humans are cows. Such a person who would do so would be marked as an irrational thinker. Another example, which I think is actually your argument, "As far as other species, the discovery process is paradoxical.(rotfl) Let's say you have species A which is the ancestor of species B. You are looking for the "missing link" in between the two (species C). One day species C is discovered. Now, where you only had one hole (between A and B), you have two (between A and C, and between C and B). Creationists often take advantage of this fact by claim there are tons of holes in the fossil record, when in fact scientists have made lots of discoveries." - andsoccer16
Again the argument is both petitio principii and invalid . The argument grants the conclusion in the premises of the argument. Also the terms of the conclusion do not follow the terms of the premises.
(Remember, this is an argument that erroneously attempts to answer the question of the absence of intermediate fossils in the fossil record.)
Here is how:
First premise: species A which is the ancestor of species B.
(The first premise begs the question that A is the ancestor of B.)
Second premise: the "missing link" in between the two (species C)
(The second premise grants the conclusion as well (begs the question) there is a missing link.)
Third premise: One day species C is discovered.
(Again the premise is begged that the discovery is the missing link.)
Conclusion: Now, where you only had one hole (between A and B), you have two (between A and C, and between C and B).
The conclusion doesn’t follow the premises. The entirety of the argument demonstrates the following fallacies: Straw-man, petitio principii, missing the point.
The argument miserably fails to prove anything other than the intellectual ineptitude of the author regarding reason.
By the way, the absence of evidence of intermediate fossils in a fossil record that is nearly complete evidences there are no intermediate fossils filling the ‘missing links’. Yet, one can jump to a multitude of conclusions and fallaciously argue,’ See, look, I told you these fossils are evidences of intermediate species.’ Elementary, school children and they who are like-minded shall compose cute, quaint songs for memory.
My oppositional view is not caused by your arguments of supposed evidences of the theory of evolution or, as inferred from your words, closed-mindedness. My oppositional view reflects the consequences of the laws of reason which prevent me from being too lame-brained. HA HA. (I may falsely infer a thing but only for a time.)LOL
What evidence exists , not belief, that constitutes an axiomatic premise that would cause a reasonable person to assert that the existence of any species is predicated of another species? If we were to reason that all species of life are the necessary consequence of the natural selection of another species of life then we are well on our way to the axiom that there is a god who is the creator of all life. For life is the necessary consequence of the natural selection of life.
Take heed to what I am saying for your benefit. The theory of evolution in no degree troubles my mind. Just as the atheist troubles not my thoughts or alters my mind. Yet, if you consider the roadblock betwixt you and I, logic, you will realize the key to persuade or dissuade your opponents may never be obtained yet you can increase your pleasure in that which you endeavor to pursue.
Perhaps you, one day, can be a voice that forcefully and convincingly apologizes for your position and that of others. Whether theories, the realities of life, law, politics and even religion all people deserve to hear valid arguments.
Your arguments make a mockery of logic, and reason. Instead of debating me on the actual evidence you instead continue to accuse me of making assumptions, and begging the question. I am doing no such thing. I maintain that your entire argument is specious, and any frustration that I have stems from the fact that you refuse to actually deal with the evidence.
The theory of evolution is in no way abstract, but instead concrete. It is well understood, and only doubted by people like yourself who don't understand the scientific process.
If you don't know what a logical (or formal) fallacy is, then please look here. If you disagree with the term, fine, but that's what it's called.
I have made some assumptions in my arguments, but only the most basic. If you would like me to start from the begging of the logic that led to the conclusion of evolution being correct then I shall indulge you, however if you can tell me which parts of the theory of our origin you doubt, dispute, or claim there is not sufficient proof for, I will know where to start from. Do you doubt that the age of the earth is about 4 billion years old, or that the universe is about 14 billion years old? Do you doubt that life has existed on this planet for over 3 billion years? Do you doubt that current species came from more primitive origins?
I need to know where to start, because although I can attempt to explain the entire history of the earth, and how scientists have come to the conclusions they have, such an explanation would be lengthy and tedious. If you want me to make no assumptions at all, then I will have to get back to you in week, because I do have a life.
As for the quote you took out of context, know that I was talking to someone who I already knew, knows about evolution. I was not trying to prove to him that evolution was the truth, only that the fossil record was complete, and for that explanation to be concise I had to make the basic assumption that evolution was true. I could have gone into the facts about carbon dating, genetics, morphology or all the other areas that would allow scientists to determine that fossil A was in fact an ancestor of fossil B, and that fossil C was an intermediate species, but I wasn't debating someone who was ignorant on the subject.
In short, tell me what assumptions (if any) you will allow me to make during my explanation, because any I have made so far were only for the ease of explaining. When the ideas were first conceived by scientists, however, no assumptions were made. Since then the theories have been put to the test by many, and have always passed.
Understand as well that this is not philosophy. Philosophically the only assumption one can make is that one exists; the proof of which would be "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am". Therefore there is no way to prove that anything we see exists outside of our own minds. Science makes the basic assumption that what we see, and others confirm, is real.
You don't seem to understand that small adaptations (which you admit exist) over long periods of time lead to new species. I have shown you that this has been observed, and have showed you medical uses for the theory of evolution, yet still you doubt.
So despite your arrogance and ignorance, I will walk you through an complete explanation of evolution, and it's evidence...just tell me where to start.
First, if we are to engage in a meaningful discourse about any subject and its’ corollaries, both you and I must agree to a cessation of insult tag. Second, I applaud your willingness to attempt further debate with the opposition.
Before I name the desired subject-matter of our debate I would like to outline the structure of our debate whereby the goal of valid arguments is reached.
#1. All premises and conclusions are clearly stated in propositional form.
#2. The key terms of all propositions that have multiple or doubtful meanings are defined.
#3. All conclusions will be considered valid when syllogistically inferred. This however is not the equivalent of arguments and conclusions being true, or a valid conclusion is a true conclusion. Thereby, both you and I can logically argue any given point and in the end, our conclusions are merely valid not necessarily true.
#4. No ad hominem attacks of one another; ad hominem attacks of others are allowable.
#5. I prefer that we argue only one proposition at a time before we move on to the corollaries of the subjects. Yet, be as lengthy as necessary to thoroughly argue the evidence that supports your proposition. Now, for the first question of the debate:
The age of the universe
In order to measure an attribute of any subject we must first know that the instruments for measurement provide the factors of the problem we seek to solve. If I want to measure the age of my body I know that Mathematics, an instrument, shall provide the solution, but dates, as also instruments, are required for the input values of the problem. The values of the problem are known, such as the date and time of my birth, and the date and time of the measurement. The resulting solution of the problem is mathematically accurate. But only accurate of my age at that time and not accurate of my current age two weeks from the time of that measurement. Again, if I want to measure the distance in miles from the center of the roof of my house to the center, as is viewed at the latitude of the center of the roof, of the surface of the moon, fourteen days after the spring solstice of year 2020, I can use the mathematical laws of Trigonometry in combination with a compass, transit, measuring stick, level, calendar, and timepiece to provide factors for the solution. In both examples, one of the measure of time, the other of the measure of miles, known measurable factors are the prerequisite for accurate mathematical solutions. Or rather simply stated, no person can know how many more apples are in barrel C than are in barrel Z if the number of apples in either barrel is unknown.
The accuracy of any mathematical solution is no more or no less accurate than the input values of the problem. Yet the accuracy of the solution is doubtful when the factors are doubtful.
I can say my father is two days old and my mother is five days old and combined they have lived for seven days. The statement is mathematically correct, but self-evidently false.
False data in, false data out, the saying goes. Now having spoken of the, self-evident, not necessary to prove, fundamentals of Math, I shall now delve into to the age of the universe.
What must first be known in order that we may calculate the age of the universe? We must first know what we are attempting to measure. Are we measuring something that is five billion years old or something that is five trillion years old? Are we predicating the age of the universe according to the limits of our understanding of that which we are attempting to measure? We, through our own devices/instruments may only be asserting not the age of the universe, but the limit of our ability to measure the universe. Does not our increasing ability to measure the universe over the last thirty years indicate that as our ability to measure increases so too does the age of the universe? We may learn that tomorrow that we can measure a universe that is one-hundred billion years old. Yet, we would then perhaps assert that the universe is one-hundred billion years old. All the while the universe may even be one-hundredfold older than our ability to measure.
It is assumed by they who measure the age of the universe that their instruments of measurement are capable of measuring the age of the universe. And hence the age of the universe falls within the scale of their instruments. My position is that we shall not know the age of the universe until the instruments of measurement exceed that which we attempt to measure. The equations for measurement are evidences of our limitations to measure the age of the universe. Has NASA or any mathematician or scientist developed an instrument that can measure infinite age?
I have not completely argued through to conclusion as of now. Yet consider the above before I add thereto.
I agree to the terms of you set forth, for this argument.
In order to talk about the age of the Universe, we must first define what the universe is. Obviously the term Universe implies that the universe consists of everything. For the purposes of this however, I will only deal with the universe we are familiar with: the observable: universe. There could have been something before the existence of our Universe, however, scientists are incapable of explaining anything before the beginning of our Universe, and any ideas that scientists have thought of, are currently untestable.
One of the ways scientists can determine the age of the universe is by looking at light from stars. We can determine how far away a star is by using parallax. This is done by observing and recording the position of a star from earth. Then retaking this measurement a half year later when the earth is on the other side of the sun. The greater the apparent change in position, the closer the star is to the earth. For an example of this, hold your thumb in front of your face and look at it with your right eye closed, and then your left eye closed. You will see that it's apparent change in position is greater then that of the background, because it's closer to your face. Here is a diagram of this method.
We also know that the speed of light in a vacume is 300,000 km per second. This has been experimentally tested, and is an important constant in physics (i.e. the "c" in E=mcc). Therefore, by knowing both the distance the light from the star has traveled, and the speed at which the light traveled, we can determine how long ago the light was sent. Therefore, if we look for the oldest stars we can find, we can determine a minimum age for the universe.
Stars burn hydrogen as fuel. We know this from many ways, one of which would be looking at the absorption patterns of the light from a star. This fact is not disputed. Based on mathematical calculations, we know that larger stars burn through their supply of hydrogen more rapidly then smaller stars. Our star the size of our sun burns though it's supply of hydrogen in about 9 billion years. A smaller star would take longer. Therefore, when we look at how much hydrogen one of these small stars has burned through, we can determine mathematically how long that star has been in existence. Then we add to this, the amount of time it took the light to travel to earth, and we have the minimum age of the universe. The logic here is, the universe must be older than the oldest star.
If you make me explain the math for these calculations I will probably slit my wrists, however, scientists estimate that the oldest stars are somewhere between 11 and 18 billion years old. Clearly this estimate is not very precise. This is mostly because our theories of stellar evolution are not completely developed to the point where we can tell exactly the age of these stars, but instead only get a ballpark figure.
Using the knowledge of the vastness of our own solar system, two theories were proposed on the nature of our universe. The first was the steady state theory. It said that the universe was infinite, and had existed forever. The second was the theory that the universe had a starting point, and was currently expanding. The latter of these two ideas gained significant support from observations by Edwin Hubble and Eisenstein's equations.
Edwin Hubble was on of the most influential astronomers, and went a long way towards expanding our knowledge of the universe. Him and other astronomers viewed distant galaxies and noticed a trend. They saw that the more distant the galaxies the more red they appeared. In fact they were even able to come up with a rough mathematical proportion showing how the distance of the galaxies from earth relates to the wave length of their light. With our more precise instruments, we have gotten a more accurate number. The question then became, why was this? Hubble came up with the answer. Wavelength changes depending on whether an object is moving to or away from you. Imagine a car honking a horn. As it approaches you, the horn frequency is low, and when it passes you it becomes higher. The same is true for light. If an object is moving towards you the light appears to be violet shifted, and if the object is moving away from you the object appears to be red shifted. This was the explanation Hubble gave for the red appearance of far away galaxies. The proportion he gave describs the apparent speed of galaxies as you look farther away from earth, and became known as Hubble's law. These estimates for the rate at which the Universe was expanding matched Einstein's equations on special relativity, which stated that the universe had to be either expanding or contracting.
If we know the rate at which the universe is expanding, we can determine when the universe began it's expansion. This is how we arrived at the idea of a big bang. We know that the entire universe is expanding from a single point, and that this event occurred between 13.6 and 13.8 billion years ago. This idea has been backed up by numerous other experimental observations, including background radiation of space left over from the big bang.
The only assumptions I have made are that the universe exists, and that we can measure it. You will also notice that I didn't talk about what happened before the big bang or how the big bang occurred. That is because we don't know, and as of right now, there is no way to know. There could have been something, there could have been nothing, there could have been anything, but science only deals with what can be observed.
First, I appreciate your level-headed response. Second, your argument is consistent with the widely accepted scientific methods and conclusions of quantifying the age of the universe. However, I am not persuaded that the observations and conclusions of the methods account for several factors. Yet, if they have been accounted for I want to know the factors. I would like to know:
A. Is the location of the center point of expansion of the universe known or unknown?
B. Earth’s position in the universe relative to the current center point of expansion of the universe is________.
C. The position of the source of light of the measurement relative to the current point of expansion of the universe is___________.
(I grant margins of error in the answers for the above questions.)
There are other factors I need to know. I’ll request them after your response.
The answers to your questions are actually very cool (in my humble opinion).
I described that the universe is expanding, but what I neglected to mention (because my argument was already very long) is that space itself is expanding. In fact, before the big bang space and time didn't exist. That's a complicated idea, but according to Einstein, gravity actually curves the universe... and his math has been verified by numerous experiments (ex. he predicted that light would be affected by gravity even though it has no mass, and during a solar eclipse this was witnessed because the light from stars the should have been obscured was bent by the suns gravity).
What this means is that the universe does not have an expansion point. You would expect this point to be in the center of the universe, but the universe is in fact curved, and therefore has no center. If you went past one edge of the universe, you would end up on the other side. Therefore, although we can see the universe expanding away from us, the expansion is not occurring from a specific point, but in fact is occurring equally at all points.
Maybe this answer isn't satisfying, however, think of it like this... the big bang occurred everywhere in the universe at the same time.
Yes, you are correct; the submitted answers are not satisfying. Yet, your answers are consistent with the current scientific views of the universe. Yet, I am not aware of a universally accepted shape of the universe, parabolic or spherical. The terms connote curvature of space, and denote models of calculation and assumptions, but neither is observable. You are not in a sense making an irrational assumption, yet the nature of the science itself must begin with certain assumptions. Such is the nature of most studies of men.
The difficulty in attempting to quantify the age of the universe is problematic. It’s as though we must quantify the age of the universe with only some of the necessary data. Nonetheless, the problem I have in determining an age for the universe is that I cannot claim I’ve identified the boundary of the universe or more specifically the oldest formation of matter of the universe. I can only validate the claim that I have observed an object/s that is part of the universe. And such observation indicates according to known constants and factors that the quantification of the age is only a property of the object not the universe. No reasonable premise exists, deductive of inductive, that validly asserts the age of the universe is predicable of the age of the observed formation of matter. For example, stars are formations of matter, the globular star cluster, M13, in the constellation Hercules, in our galaxy, is a formation of matter. Its’ age is probably between 14 and 24 billion years old and is 22.2 thousand light years from earth. The age of M13 is not to be inferred as the age of the universe. Moreover, I can’t infer or deduce that M13 is the oldest globular star cluster in the universe. However, we can validly assert that if M13 is 14 billion years old the universe must be older than M13. For, how can a formation of matter within the Milky Way, also matter of the universe, be older than the universe which preceded the formation of the matter of M13? Though we may call such attributes paradoxical, Occam’s razor, simply applied, would compel us to conclude the universe is older than the constituent matter thereof. There are many other examples that I could submit to challenge the claim we know the age of the universe. But doing so would become long and tedious. All of which I am willing to later explore at your request. Now let’s move along.
Allow me to challenge you by a question that is probably one of the most difficult questions that has yet to be asked. If we assert that the light we see in a given observation is 13 billion years old we are only asserting the age of the light and not the age of the source of the light, for the source of the light may have been emitting light for 30 billion years, so to speak. Can we observe how long the causative source of light has been emitting light? The observation implies only the age of the light not the age of the source of the light. Consider the following analogy: I am 13 billion light years away and I point a galaxy power flashlight at the Earth for 10 billion years. Can you know how long that light has been turned on by determining the age of the light that has reached the Earth? Let’s go further with the analogy. Are we, Earth and myself, being separated by the expansion rate of the galaxy by a factor of 1 or 2 or .5 or .0001? Meaning, are we headed in the same direction or different directions? Another question that remains to be definitively answered is the question: Are we looking across ninety percent of the whole of the universe or are we looking across a much smaller percentage of the universe? For if we are looking across a small percentage of the universe at an object we believe to be indicative of the first formations of matter the universe must be much older. And yet if we are looking across a large percentage of the universe the universe must be much younger. Consider another analogy: If instead of using a galaxy power flashlight pointed at the Earth I use a galaxy power candle, which unlike the flashlight the light emitted is nearly omni-directional instead of directionally focused, and so for every photon that reaches the Earth 13 billion years later there are an equal number of photons that have traveled 13 billion years in all other directions. The photons that have traveled in the diametrical opposite direction as that of the Earth are double the distance from earth as the source of light. Light is an observable attribute of the observable universe, yet we must reason that both light and energy are expanding the size of the universe at the speed of light out from the universe and thus expanding the universe at the speed of light. This is however not observable, but is nonetheless deducible. We truly can see that which shines upon us only if we look at the source of light. But we cannot know all that which light shines upon. Remember, we see on Earth both the reflection of light from the Sun and the direct light from the Sun. We see only the direct light of the universe and never the reflected light of the universe. Again, all light from the universe expands the size of the universe at the speed of light for the light itself travels in the universe and consitutes that which is measurable of the universe. For light is an observable attribute of the universe, yet not always an observable reflection of the light of the universe.
I am persuaded by the above statements that we have yet to begin to comprehend the time, and vastness of the universe. It’s like attempting to measure a thing that expands faster than our ability to comprehend the expansion thereof. And hereby, I assert the universe is in several orders of magnitude older and larger than can ever be observable. Yet, in the end mankind can take pleasure in its’ inability to know all that exists.
You are mistaken on several of your claims. First off, the oldest globular clusters are not older then the universe. Early studies put them at this age, however now, new research with better tools, and a better understanding of stellar evolution has put their age at below 14 billion years, and thus younger then the universe.
As for your "difficult" questions, I believe I already answered some of them, but perhaps I was not clear. If you were holding a flashlight? No we couldn't tell how long you had been shining your light.. If you were a star? Depends. If you were an individual isolated star, with no other stars around you, then it would be difficult. If you formed in a group of stars (as is very common), then yes. We can tell by determining the mass of the stars, their relative brightness, and their composition (using spectroscopy) how old the star is.
Next you ask about the rate of expansion, and, as I already mentioned we can determine the rate of expansion. We even have a formula that determines how fast galaxies are moving away from us, depending on their distance from the earth.
There is no way of knowing the exact size of the universe, but we are not talking about the size of the universe here. We can still determine the age of the universe by looking at the rate at which it is expanding. We do not need to see the whole universe to determine its age, and right now we have plenty of data to calculate, fairly precisely, how old the universe is. In fact, as I have said earlier, this calculation has been verified by other methods of determining the universe’s age, such as by measuring the background radiation of the universe.
Your next argument is meaningless. Our telescopes are very powerful. We can see vast distances, and pick up very distant stars. Yes photons would go in all directions, however they would be traveling through mostly empty space, and therefore easily reach earth if we have the right equipment to detect them. In addition, light is not the only way in which we detect stars. Radio waves are also detectable, and in recent years, our ability to detect radio waves from space has increased dramatically.
You then go on to make an incorrect assumption about the universe:
“yet we must reason that both light and energy are expanding the size of the universe at the speed of light out from the universe and thus expanding the universe at the speed of light”
The universe is does not have to expand at the speed of light, but could, and most likely is (depending on the size of the universe) expanding faster than the speed of light. In addition, energy, and light are not the forces causing the universe to expand. I cannot make any sense of the argument you are making, because it is not an accurate representation of reality. Either you are confused, or you need to check your sources.
Scientists do not claim to know the entirety of the universe, only the way in which it formed. The “big bang” is the only explanation of the evidence that we have (and don’t fool yourself, we have a lot of evidence). There is always the possibility that new evidence will lead to new theories, but to think that these theories would be more then minor changes to current models is somewhat ludicrous.
Finally, I must ask: why do you continue to quiz me with questions you hope will stump me? Do you believe that the scientists who came up with these theories were just making things up? If this is the case, then you clearly don’t understand science. The scientific method allows us to understand our universe. This is the method with which we have come to the conclusions we now have. It is the same method that has helped increase our life expectancy, and is allowing you and me to have this conversation. I understand skepticism, but at a certain point your doubt becomes unreasonable.
I have not attempted to, ’stump’ your intellectual ability. I’ve only attempted to extract your understanding of the theory of the big bang. If you are to act as an apologist for your views and pontificate as well, you ought to be able to logically support your pontifications. However you, andsoccer16, have betrayed the purpose of this debate, which was intended to be a meaningful discourse of a subject. The structure of the debate was outlined for the very purpose of conducting a rational discourse between ourselves. You agreed to the following condition of the debate:
#4. No ad hominem attacks of one another;
Now, when there is a violation of an agreement between two parties the agreement has become null and void. And consequently I am no longer bound to the structure of the debate. Therefore I too shall attack you. The first statement of your argument began with myself as the subject. You opened with:
A. “You are mistaken on several of your claims.”
I am not the subject of the debate. Why do you therefore accuse me of mistaken claims. The subject of the debate is the universe and the predicate is the age of the universe. It’s as though you are ignorant of the fact that your argument attempts to prove your accusation of myself and not the subject matter of the debate. The subject is not about what I may or may not have done. Let’s proceed.
B. “You then go on to make an incorrect assumption about the universe”
C. ”Either you are confused, or you need to check your sources.”
D. ‘your doubt becomes unreasonable.’
Reference B: I, again, am the subject of the statement which predicates an incorrect assumption.
Reference C: Again, I am the subject.
Reference D: I am the subject.
One word of advice: be smart don’t act smart.
You, in the beginning of this debate, stated that the universe is curved. Obviously you are reading outdated textbooks. As stated in your argument you only would discuss the observable universe. WMAP has confirmed that the observable universe is flat. However, I patted you on the back contrary to what is observed to be true of the universe; the observable universe is flat. I, in a sense, gave you enough rope to hang yourself. Cosmologists, theoretical physicists, and astronomers to name a few are in disagreement about many of the things that I address in the debate. Yet, you argued dogmatically, ignorantly and irrationally of that very fact. Come on child, if the answers were so universal and valid most scientists of those fields would no longer attempt to authenticate the theory of the big bang. Scientists of those fields are constrained by reason, unlike yourself, to speak in terms that don’t violate reasonable thoughts. And for those reasons they are continually testing the theory of the big bang. Mind you however though, they are not testing the theory of the big bang. They are testing the predictions of the theory of the big bang. They are not testing the big bang itself. And if the answers were as you pontificate, fact, what’s the point in validating what is already a fact.
You are as one who believes what you must believe for the sake of believing, a zealot. You don’t exhibit the necessary qualities of mind to be a scientist in any field of study. It’s as though your brain has a short circuit. Reason and emotion are contrary to one another. Your emotions override your ability, if you have the ability, to be reasonable in mind.
Why did you presume I attempted to stump you? Was it because you were stumped and thought I did it intentionally? No, I didn’t try to stump you.
If you are ignorant of the syllogism, the rules of sound reasoning, and the fallacies of an argument I recommend that you procure a copy of Aristotle’s Organon, and read it as many times as necessary until you understand that there are immutable laws that govern the thinking of a man’s arguments.
We can say whatever we want and, in a sense, all verbal statements are possible. Yet, there is no instrument like logic that trains the mind to think valid thoughts.
Lastly, I want to end this absurd debate between ourselves by stating that I am aware you don’t know how to argue your view or comprehend a view that is contrary to your faith. You must have been raised by faith based principles. I on one hand have no drive to protect any theory. You, on the other hand, are definitely protecting something that is ultra- fragile that just the very thought of someone disbelieving what you believe causes you to emote a religious like fervor.
(P.S.)
For the record, I actually have no problem considering the validity or invalidity of the theory of the big bang. I must however test the theory by the evidences that I can observe. Nonetheless, you, unlike myself, will believe, without question, that which you are told you should believe.
Your arguments display childlike limitations of the mind.
You need to look up the definition of an ad hominim attack because I made none. I said that you were mistaken on several of your claims...this is the truth. Had you said the sky was green, I would have had an equal right to say that you were wrong. I understand that this debate deals not with you, but it is with you that I am debating. If you give inaccurate information then the whole argument is compromised.
When you make inaccurate claims, I will call you out, and I did call you out. You are not exempt from reality.
I understand that you do not want to debate the facts, because the facts point to the big bang. If you decide to make petty arguments fine, I will stop participating.
Do not respond to my previous reply. For in doing so,you shall only solidify and validate that which is self-evident. It's better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove your a fool.
Yes, for his sake and not mine. I have nothing to prove to anyone, and I desire that he would spare himself the humility of compelling myself to boldly evidence his ineptitude. For I am convinced he comprehends not mine or even his own statements and therefore I will not accomplish anything but proving to others the validity of my accusations.
However I will continually bare witness of willful ignorance and arrogance if compelled.
They do not have the mature minds to think for themselves and think those who are bigger than them are right and belief them just because they think their seniors are right.
Children should be taught the theory when they are big enough to think for themselves and not when they are still a little child
Why don't we just present them with multiple theories, and then let them choose for themselves?
It's the same thing with religion. Say you're born into a religion, and live with this religion for all of your childhood, when it comes time that your ideals are questioned, what are you going to back them up with? If you're Christian, what are you to say? I believe because I've always been told to? My parents do and their parents did, so I should, too? You might as well have never had an experience with God, but because you have been essentially indoctrinated into the beliefs of the Church, you have no way to back up your thoughts. "Why do you believe this?" How are you going to answer that question?
You have never had the opportunity to choose how you are going to believe, and now you are most likely going to think that way forever. And why? You don't know. It's just always been that way to you, and you have been told by your seniors that it is the right way to think.
I think most children believe less in God than they do in their parents' opinion.
Or rather, children should be taught from an early age that science is fact/observation based and that the facts/observations we have accumulated lead us to X conclusions. They shouldn't believe evolution because older people have taught them about it. They should believe it because it's not a belief, it's the result of scientific evidence.
Without going into superfluous detail about the fallacies contained within your post, I would like to bring to your attention that observations that are called scientific are not evidence of scientific conclusions. There is nothing scientific about the conclusions of that which is not observed. Hence, no man has ever observed evolution, but many scientists assert the science of evolution.
You can claim that the theory of evolution is scientific, but until you or any other person can predict or duplicate the evolution of life there is no necessary inference that life evolves.
I can go into great measure to support my position, if you are willing to do likewise we’ll debate this question.
Tell me about your choice of spoonerism as an identity. Are you referring to L. Spooner?
Evolutionary theory can be proved through the fossil record, which performs exactly the way the hypothesis predicts. Unicellular organisms exist before multicellular ones, jawless fish precede jawed fish, lunged fish precede amphibians, amphibians precede reptiles, and so on.
If the first fossil amphibian preceded the first fossil fish, then clearly amphibians could not have evolved from fish. All life on Earth has turned out to work in essentially the same way: organisms store and translate information using the same code, with only a few minor variations between the most primitive organisms.
"What matters in science is not how much you can predict on the basis of a theory or how precise those predictions are, but whether the predictions you can make turn out to be right. Meteorologists don't reject chaos theory because it tells them it is impossible to predict the weather 100% accurately - on the contrary, they accept it because weather follows the broad patterns predicted by chaos theory." LePage
My username refers more to William Archibald and the word he created by the same name. It's my favorite word in the English language because I once won a dollar bet when a friend challenged that it was a word I'd made up. I did not. William Archibald Spooner, however, did. :-P
Evolution caught in the act Observed, concluded, scientific.
Please choose supporting evidence of evolution and not de-evolution. Bare in mind that I am a rational skeptic and not an irrational proponent or opponent of many supposed scientific theories.
I am very hesitant to go full bore into dissecting your argument, however if you would that I do such I shall.
The fossil record does not with any stretch of the imagination support the inference that organisms slowly evolve over millions of years through small non-discernable mutations across a species. For if it did there would be more intermediate fossils between evolutionary species than the identified species. Consider the example:
It is claimed that bats are the evolutionary progeny of rats or whatever you may call them (layman terms). It is also claimed that the process of evolution occurs in small increments over the course of millions of years. Now, explain to me how it is possible that the conditions of fossilization were present every few million years or so in order to fossilize only a few species while at the time never present to fossilize the intermediate species between rat and bat. The fossil record does not support the inference that bats evolved from the species rat across millions of years. Yet on the other hand, the fossil record does support the inference that species are spontaneous (if we can call it that) in appearance. What say you? I’m trying to keep it light-hearted, so pardon the license I’ve taken in the usages of the words rat and bat.
Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.
The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens.
Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.
But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.
Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.
"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.
By this time, Lenski calculated, enough bacterial cells had lived and died that all simple mutations must already have occurred several times over.
That meant the "citrate-plus" trait must have been something special - either it was a single mutation of an unusually improbable sort, a rare chromosome inversion, say, or else gaining the ability to use citrate required the accumulation of several mutations in sequence.
To find out which, Lenski turned to his freezer, where he had saved samples of each population every 500 generations. These allowed him to replay history from any starting point he chose, by reviving the bacteria and letting evolution "replay" again.
Would the same population evolve Cit+ again, he wondered, or would any of the 12 be equally likely to hit the jackpot?
The replays showed that even when he looked at trillions of cells, only the original population re-evolved Cit+ - and only when he started the replay from generation 20,000 or greater. Something, he concluded, must have happened around generation 20,000 that laid the groundwork for Cit+ to later evolve.
Lenski and his colleagues are now working to identify just what that earlier change was, and how it made the Cit+ mutation possible more than 10,000 generations later.
In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.
Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."
The replays showed that even when he looked at trillions of cells, only the original population re-evolved Cit+ - and only when he started the replay from generation 20,000 or greater. Something, he concluded, must have happened around generation 20,000 that laid the groundwork for Cit+ to later evolve.
Firstly, bacteria will always remain bacteria is a fact the study demonstrated.
Secondly, no man will live long enough to count to 1 trillion let alone live long enough to see trillions of individual bacteria.
This is a lie and propaganda that is evidenced by a scientist!
Do the math!
Hint: according to my mathematics, a person must be alive for 24,000 years in order to count to one trillion. (this is a conservative calculation.)
Firstly, bacteria will always remain bacteria is a fact the study demonstrated.
---The study did not prove this, nor did it seek to.
Secondly, no man will live long enough to count to 1 trillion let alone live long enough to see trillions of individual bacteria.
This is a lie and propaganda that is evidenced by a scientist!
Do the math!
Hint: according to my mathematics, a person must be alive for 24,000 years in order to count to one trillion. (this is a conservative calculation.)
---The bacterial count doesn't mean he looked at two trillion individual cells, but that he saw trillions in his observation of populations at different generations.
Now that I know you can, to some degree discern the subtleties of thought, are you willing to participate in a pretense-free discussion about the limitations of our camps.
First example: No man can empirically by experiment claim that a species either evolves or does not evolve. Why? How many millions of years are required to confirm a valid experiment? No man shall live long enough to validate either viewpoint!
What say you?
And no I’m not debating our positions; I’m questioning the honesty of our positions.
So, shouldn't we also not teach them religion? After all, they can't think for themselves. or morality- they can't decide what's right or wrong yet, they don't have empathy or feelings. By your argument, no one should know anything until they're eighteen. or twenty-five, when the brain stops maturing? When do you teach them? When they're twelve and think every word coming out of an authority figure's mouth is wrong? Or do we only teach them obvious things, like Newtonian physics and math. But, what about negative numbers? Or imaginary numbers? Are those unsafe for their young minds? There is significant evidence for evolution, and waiting until they're older won't make it any more or less true.
Kind of depends on how old they are. You should wait until they're mature enough.
Anyways, the students should be the ones to decide whether they want to learn the theory or not. You can't enforce a THEORY on kids, it just doesn't sound right.
Teachers who might refuse to teach the theory shouldn't be argueing. They're just teaching it, just because you think its bullshit doesn't mean you have to learn it, you still have a job to do.
